Viewing Single Post From: Soaps.com talks with Sandra Robinson
Dec 16 2008, 06:45 PM
- Elite Member
- June 14, 2007
No, but even Bell stuck around long past his creative peak. It's just that his peak was so much higher than other writers' that he got away with it. Very few writers are talented enough to possess this luxury.
- Dec 16 2008, 06:03 PM
- Dec 16 2008, 05:41 PM
- Dec 16 2008, 04:56 PM
- Dec 16 2008, 04:47 PM
- Dec 16 2008, 04:37 PM
- Dec 16 2008, 03:20 AM
We will leave you with the wonderful stories of Days like whiny Melanie, Sleazy Dr. Dan, and the Salem mattress that is Chloe because they are clearly going to save this show the way that the vets cannot.
Because there is still so much story to tell for the abovenamed... which I guess is why Dena is rewriting Kristen's fake pregnancy for Nicole lol The storyline possibilities for the younger crowd and the newbies are supposedly endless whereas with the vets TPTB are fresh out of ideas bot because they are not creative but because there are no ideas to be had. I wonder what that says about every other new character who gets recycled storylines :rolleyes:
Just like the elevator sex was a repeat of Roman and Kate several years ago.
They are either fresh out of new ideas or full of bad ones like having Bo now become psychic or having all of the young people swapping partners like sex in the city. What fun! :shrug:
When did Roman and Kate have sex in an elevator? That never happened.
Every show recycles stories, especially soaps that have been on for 40+ years. Even the great head writers repeat stories. You can do that as long as you aren't repeating stories with the same characters and Days is not doing that. That is the big difference. It's very hard to come by an original idea in any form of the entertainment industry.
Because Hollywood tends to recycle the same group of hacks instead of injecting new creative blood. It's not the characters that are stale and played out. It's the pool of writers. Daytime in particular has a horrible institutional bias against promising younger writers.
Why do you think Hollywood is doing so many sequels to films rather then new, original films?
That's an economic point, not a creative one. Network/studio execs would rather bank on a mediocre but proven formula than roll the dice on more original but (supposedly) riskier material. It's not that the new ideas don't exist. They just aren't being produced.
Wow...do I disagree.
Yes, writers are recycled but even Bill Bell recycled stories. Was he a hack?
What can be done that hasn't been done? Not just in regards to Days but anything Hollywood puts out there. Yes, the sequel madness is economic related but it's also related to the fact that nothing out there is surprising anymore. You have to put new spins on things to get by. Hell, we are even getting remakes of things both in film and TV. Why is that? Not just because of economics. No one has any ideas. I'm not going to say there is nothing new and original that can be done but there is very little. You just have to put a different spin on it and that is what most do but to suggest it's just hacks doing this or it's purely driven by economic reasons...I can't buy that. There is no way it's simply that.
Well, take House M.D. as an example. When Hugh Laurie got the pilot script, he assumed that the character of Wilson would be the protagonist and he would play the foil. It was unheard of for a medical drama to center around a misanthropic anti-hero rather than a conventional heroic leading man. Four seasons later and it's now the top rated scripted program on American television. FOX took a risk on a new and unusual premise and it's paid off spectacularly for them. Contrast that with NBC's ultra-conservative approach and then take the look at their primetime ratings...